MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885603585 · doi:10.1145/3185065

Automatics

2018· article· en· W2885603585 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsCanadian Rheumatology AssociationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Set (abstract data type)Resource (disambiguation)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When fabricating, it is common to follow a prescribed set of steps in a tutorial or how-to. While popular, such explicit knowledge resources have many inconsistencies and omissions, use static illustrations, and cannot adapt to drop-in makers or a maker's mistakes. To overcome many of these issues, this work presents Automatics, a novel explicit knowledge resource system that dynamically generates fabrication activities for one or more makers based on their current environmental and fabrication context. Automatics assigns tasks to makers based on the past tools and components the maker was working with, enables makers to recover from mistakes through model regeneration, suggests alternative tools if a needed tool is unavailable or in use, and allows multiple makers to drop-in throughout a fabrication activity. Initial usage and feedback from novice makers showed that Automatics increases the number of tasks that can be completed compared to paper instructions, decreases frustration, and improves one's understanding of the global context of assigned tasks during fabrication activities.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.912
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it